Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ishwari Prasad v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 37862 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 15541 (14 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.12

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37862 of 2004

Ishwari Prasad


State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration application.

Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged, as requested by learned counsel for the parties this Court proceeds to hear this matter and dispose of finally under the Rules of the Court.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2004 issued by the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training (D.I.E.T.), Chitrakoot, preventing him from appearing in the training of Special B.T.C. Course 2004 on the ground that he was not found eligible to undergo the course of Special B.T.C.-2004.

The facts giving rise to the present dispute is that the State Council of Education, Research and Training, U.P., Lucknow, (hereinafter referred to as 'SCERT') pursuant to State Government's order dated 14.1.2004 published an advertisement dated 21.1.2004 inviting applications from eligible candidates for Special B.T.C.course 2004. Such candidates were required to apply who had passed B.Ed/L.T. Course as regular institutional candidate from Institute/Degree Colleges/Universities recognized by National Council of Teachers Education (for short "N.C.T.E."). The petitioner had obtained qualification of B.Ed. from Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') in 1994. Photostat copy of certificate has been placed on record as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It is said that he applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement dated 21.1.2004, selected for undergoing Special B.T.C. Course 2004 and was sent to training too at D.I.E.T. Chitrakoot. While undergoing training, his testimonials, it appears, were sought to be verified by respondent no.3 and he found that B.Ed. Certificate of the petitioner shows integrated course of B.Ed. conducted by the University and expressing certain doubts about the recognition of the the said course, he referred the matter to respondent no.2 and it appears that pursuant to the advice received from respondent no.2 vide letter dated 7.8.2004, respondent no.3 vide impugned order dated 20.8.2004 informed the petitioner that his B.Ed. Course was not valid for giving him admission in Special B.T.C. Course 2004 and consequently, the petitioner was denied to appear further in the training.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per advertisement, the only requirement was B.Ed. to be undergone from a recognized University or College as institutional candidate and the petitioner could not have been non-suited only on the ground that the said course was integrated (Akikrit). He further submitted that National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1995 Act") itself came into existence in 1995 and, therefore, the course of B.Ed. passed by the petitioner prior to enforcement of the said Act was a valid course which was passed from a University duly established under Madhya Pradesh Act No. 9 of 1991 and, therefore, his degree was valid and in accordance with the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as '1956 Act') and, as such, the impugned order is patently illegal. He submits that there is no distinction between the B.Ed. course run by various Universities and once a course has been duly conducted by the University and the incumbent has undergone the same as an institutional candidate, number of subjects or duration or any other difference in B.Ed. course run by the University would not make any difference so long the course is duly conducted by the University and has the standard of graduation in education training course.

Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary submitted that the B.Ed. certificate of the petitioner was found to contain an endorsement 'Akikrit' and on further scrutiny the respondents came to conclusion that the said course was not valid course of B.Ed. on account whereof the petitioner was held to be ineligible for admission in Special B.T.C. Course 2004. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the counter affidavit is wholly silent as to in what manner B.Ed. course undergone by the petitioner was found to be invalid or irregular. Supplementary counter affidavit which is said to have been filed by the respondent states that Akikrit B.Ed. course run by different Universities is a four-year course in which the first three years is graduation and one year of B.Ed. training course and the minimum eligibility of this Course is Intermediate. It further states that B.Ed. Course run by Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidyalaya is only one year course which is not equivalent to other B.Ed. Courses run by Government of Pondicherry and the institution of Bhopal. It also refers to some discrepancies in certain marksheets issued by the said University to some other candidates and on the basis thereof it is said that the course of B.Ed. undergone by the petitioner would not make him eligible for admission in Special B.T.C. Course. However, it is not disputed that the University has been established under statutory enactment of Madhya Pradesh Legislature, namely, M.P. Act No. 9 of 1991. The B.Ed. course conducted by the said University had been undergone by the petitioner in 1994 as an institutional candidate and there is no averment in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not undergone the said course as an institutional candidate. Prior to enforcement of 1995 Act, various teachers education courses were being run by different Universities and educational institutions fulfilling the minimum standards set up by the University Grants Commission under the provisions of 1956 Act. Duration of course, number of subjects etc. by itself would not make a difference to distinguish different B.Ed. courses being run before the establishment of NCTE. Even thereafter, the N.C.T.E. has approved various courses already set out by various educational institutions provided they fulfil the minimum prescribed standard qualifications of holding and conducting such courses. Merely because there is some difference in period or number of subjects or otherwise, the fact cannot be denied that the course which the petitioner has undergone is of the same standard. The respondents in advertisement have only required a candidate to possess B.Ed. course duly approved having passed as institutional candidate/regular candidate from any University established by law. It is not disputed that the University was established by law and has awarded the said degree of B.Ed. to the petitioner in accordance with law as it was applicable in 1994. Learned counsel for the respondent could not show that the requirement of eligibility as per the advertisement is not being fulfilled by the petitioner. In the circumstances, merely for the reason that in some other institutions B.Ed (Ekikrit) course is being run with some different standards, it cannot be said that the petitioner's qualification is in any manner of lesser standard. In this view of the matter, I am clearly of the view that the respondents have erred in law in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he did not possess valid qualification for Special B.T.C. Training Course 2004 and as such the impugned order cannot be sustained under law.

In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.8.2004 is quashed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to complete his special B.T.C. Course 2004 without any further delay. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dated: 14.9.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.